Labour resignations

[uncleglen]

In order to have a proper socialistic society, everyone must pull their weight- which means imposing government policy on personal freedoms.

[JohnL]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is some truth on that Dave and to touch on

> what Bob said about changes to Clive Lewis's

> speech. This is exactly why the shadow cabinet

> resigned. Corbyn thinks it perfectly ok to change

> what is agreed at the last minute without

> discussion with the cabinet minister involved. He

> did a similar thing to the former transport

> minister at a press conference ffs. So much for

> the words about changing how he runs his office.

> Seamus Milne is a problem - there is no question

> of that. Clive Lewis is who I would like to see

> lead the party. I think he is everything the

> public would like. I told him that at conference

> over the weekend as well. It's also worth pointing

> out that even the conference hall wasn't well

> attended at the weekend either and the market

> area, usually full of stalls from party sponsors,

> is half empty as well - a clear sign that party

> donations have slipped away too.

Sounds like Malcolm Tucker

but he was based on .. :)

[dbboy]

The conservatives need a strong opposition, Labour have been taken into the darkness by Corbyn, Tim Farron as Lib Dem leader speaks from the heart with the speeches he makes but with 7 MP's they stand little or no chance chance of being a credible opposition. Labour now talk about preparing for the election in 2020. With Corbyn I fear they will be wiped out, so who will provide the opposition to hold the Government to account?

[nxjen]

I think it would be unwise to write off Labour under Corbyn. I would hazard an informed guess that those posting on this thread are around about 40 or over, and living in either their own properties or in secured tenancies, with reasonably secure jobs. The electorate includes those under 40 who as things are at the moment don't stand a chance of ever owning their own homes and have a future of living in rented accommodation, often in flat shares, and very little security of tenure. In addition, employment rights have been eroded.

If I was under 40 and living in these circumstances I would quite happily vote for Corbyn as someone who would improve my circumstances.

[????]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it would be unwise to write off Labour

> under Corbyn. I would hazard an informed guess

> that those posting on this thread are around about

> 40 or over, and living in either their own

> properties or in secured tenancies, with

> reasonably secure jobs. The electorate includes

> those under 40 who as things are at the moment

> don't stand a chance of ever owning their own

> homes and have a future of living in rented

> accommodation, often in flat shares, and very

> little security of tenure. In addition,

> employment rights have been eroded.

>

> If I was under 40 and living in these

> circumstances I would quite happily vote for

> Corbyn as someone who would improve my

> circumstances.

I give you the great Polly "Moaneybee"

"At one conference meeting when a speaker said Labour must win some Tory votes, someone shouted out: ?Why? We don?t want Tories!? So I find myself arguing dry psephology against passionate conviction. It?s depressing, but here?s the Fabian Society?s analysis: Labour needs 104 seats in England and Wales and 40% of the vote to win. In the marginals, four out every five of the extra votes must come from those who were Tory last time. Even if the young are energised and turnout soars to Scottish referendum heights, it gets nowhere close. Even if every single Liberal Democrat and Green vote went Labour, that only gives 29 seats. Even if Ukip were crushed, its vote divides equally Labour and Tory. As Labour wins radical votes, it risks losing moderate votes to the Tories: 2% went that way last time. Read the research yourself and groan. It hurts."

[nxjen]

I'm guessing these figures are based on the same turnout there was in 2015?

This was over 70% for the over 45s (no surprise there) but for the 25 to 34 age group just 54% and for the 18 to 24 age group just 43%. There is a huge untapped electorate not included in the Fabian Society's projections which could just possibly be galvanised by Corbyn.

[Blah Blah]

But that electorate still aren't voting and even in Labour's own elections for the youth NEC candidate, turnout was something like just 18%.

The other thing to note is the location of that untapped youth electorate. Most of it is found in dense urban areas, not in marginal rural areas they can not afford to live in, and where there is no work for them. Many of them will be students in cities that are already Labour strongholds. This is why we have seen voting share go up in Labour strongholds, but NO movement in marginals.

It's all very depressing and a move to PR may be the only chance Labour will ever have of getting to power under a left manifesto.

[Otta]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Indeed Otta. And that 40% can not be ignored.

> There is one key difference though. Corbyn this

> time won in all three areas, membership,

> affiliates registered supporters. Last time, he

> failed to get to 51% amongst the membership.

Last time was a 4 horse race though, so not surprising the membership vote was more split. Being as loads of people have joined specifically because of JC (and I agree that's a good thing) he was always going to smash this. I'm just glad Smith got close to 40%. Had it been closer to 80/20, I'd have been absolutely gutted. Knowing that 40% don't want Corbyn does at least give me some hope for the future.

[Blah Blah]

Yes and it is a big enough slice of the membership to think that a better candidate might get there. I really would like to see Clive Lewis stand. He won't go up against Jeremy, but if Labour lose the next GE (likely right now), then I would like to see him stand. I think short term, Labour are screwed, but Jeremy will never get to lead for long enough to change the party forever.

[Otta]

Let's hope not.

Chuka

Sadiq

Jarvis

Lewis

Cooper

All people that might fancy a crack at the top job once we're through this crazy storm...

[Earl Aelfheah]

If a half decent candidate had stood against Corbyn they'd have won IMO.

[red devil]

Who is CorbyBabes heir apparent? He's not in it for the long term, so he must be grooming someone...so to speak

[Sue]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It's indirect sexual discrimination because a

> > particular group of people (women) are less

> likely

> > to be able to take part than another particular

> > group of people (men).

>

> No... I can agree it disadvantages single parents

> (as someone pointed out earlier). But for

> two-parent families, childcare duties are their

> own business. There's no reason it needs to be the

> mother who leaves work at 5pm to look after the

> kids.

There isn't in theory any reason why it should be the mother who leaves work early, no.

But in practice in many cases it is the mother.

One would need to look at the actual situation in a particular case to say whether or not it was indirect discrimination.

[Sue]

rahrahrah Wrote:

> Also, join the Labour party. If you?re generally

> to the left of the Conservatives, join the party

> so that you can add to the number of pragmatic

> voices. Those who want to influence the future

> direction of Labour need to be on the inside.

"Generally to the left of the Conservatives" is still pretty far right these days.

That's why so many people have voted for Corbyn, who is clearly not.

Many people who are supposed to be Labour politicians come across as not much different from Tory politicians. There seems to me to be a crying need for a separate centre left party. The Lib Dems I guess would have been it had they not messed up so badly and lost voters in droves by teaming up with the Tories.

[Sue]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

There is a

> huge untapped electorate not included in the

> Fabian Society's projections which could just

> possibly be galvanised by Corbyn.

Yes.

I am taking a real interest in politics for the first time in my life because of Corbyn, and so are many other people I have spoken to (just to be clear, I have always voted, just not with much enthusiasm).

Just because people have not voted in the past does not mean that they will not do so in the future if they see the possibility of a real change in their lives as a result.

ETA: Although I agree that there are issues around where these people may be concentrated, and that PR may well in practice be the only hope - which under a Tory government is never going to happen.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I told him that at conference over the weekend as well.

You went, BB? I watched a bit on the Beeb news channel. It seemed to be terribly boring in an unexplainably amusing way.

All the speakers seemed to talk about whatever subject they wanted, and nearly all of them started the speech with "Hello, my name is XXXX and I am a first time delegate." which always received polite applause.

I did catch Clive Lewis' speech, though. He did actually seem quite plausible.

[Blah Blah]

It's not just the Tories who are against PR Sue, but some areas of Labour too. Caroline Lucas tried to get a bill adopted for PR in July. It was defeated by 81-74. SEVEN Labour MPs voted against, including Dennis Skinner! So it never got further than a first reading. That was an improvement on the attempt to raise a bill in 2015, but even if the bill gets through a first motion, it would be unlikely to make it into law and as you say, especially while there is a Tory majority. It's almost a catch 22 situation. Only PR can break the urban rural split, but it will take the Tories to lose an election to make it happen, which contradicts why it is needed in the first place.

There is no doubt that Corbyn has enthused a whole raft of people into the party. But that is still a far cry from winning an election. 80% of the population never join a party, or attend a rally, or go on a demonstration. Their only reference point often, is the media and party campaign materials. That's also why door to door canvassing is important too.

[Blah Blah]

Yes I went Loz, and yes it was incredibly dull. Momentum were putting on a far more interesting programme of events, so much so, that I popped over to check some out. Horrified to say that I quite enjoyed myself there :D

[nxjen]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes I went Loz, and yes it was incredibly dull.

> Momentum were putting on a far more interesting

> programme of events, so much so, that I popped

> over to check some out. Horrified to say that I

> quite enjoyed myself there :D

Rather endorses my point that Corbyn and his followers might enthuse those before now uninterested in politics (of which you're not one of course!).

[nxjen]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But that electorate still aren't voting and even

> in Labour's own elections for the youth NEC

> candidate, turnout was something like just 18%.

>

> The other thing to note is the location of that

> untapped youth electorate. Most of it is found in

> dense urban areas, not in marginal rural areas

> they can not afford to live in, and where there is

> no work for them. Many of them will be students in

> cities that are already Labour strongholds. This

> is why we have seen voting share go up in Labour

> strongholds, but NO movement in marginals.

I?m thinking this may be anecdotal rather than factual. Firstly while the turnout of the under 35s was low for the 2015 general election, the turnout was over 60% for the Referendum. Initial reports that this age group had not bothered voting were not true.

The students you mention who already live in Labour strongholds would make up a small proportion of the electorate. The voting share increasing in these constituencies may also be explained by the migrant vote.

Checking where the marginals were in 2015, these were not mainly in rural areas but predominantly in urban areas outside of London. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-general-election-100-seats-to-watch-out-for-in-may-10004084.html

"NO movement in marginals" this would be based on voting patterns before Corbyn became leader.

Whilst it?s true that 25% of the population in inner London is aged between 20 and 34, this drops to 16% in outer London compared with a not much lower 13% in the rest of the country. The largest group in many other English cities is 20 to 24 year olds. Of course, this is just a very cursory and superficial look at numbers. The point I?m trying to make is there is a large number of the electorate under 35 throughout the country, not just in labour strongholds, who have never voted who Corbyn just might be able to persuade to the ballot boxes for the first time.

The SNP took 40 seats, a huge block, off Labour in Scotland because Nicola Sturgeon was able to enthuse the electorate. Labour needs someone able to enthuse the electorate similarly and it?s possible Jeremy Corbyn may be able to do this with the younger voters.

Many of us of a certain age have unpleasant memories of the Militant Tendency and have no desire to return to their kind of politics. However, we want things to get better for the wider society but at the same time we don?t want fundamental change. I think the two may be incompatible.

[Blah Blah]

There is no evidence that non voters can be pursuaded to start voting again, and I think it's risky to assume they would vote labour if they did anyway. When talking about young people, we are referring to 18-24 yr olds, not everyone under 35, but I take your point about the EU referendum. 64% of 18-24 yr olds voted, but 90% of the over 65's voted.

A referendum where every vote counts is different than a GE though. Many non voters may not vote because their vote would make no difference in the constituency they live in. And swinging marginals, still remains the most effective way of winning an election.

Scotland is not as simple to explain either. The SNP benifitted from a referendum bounce. The same will happen for UKIP, if May calls an early election. Corbyn's problem is in thinking a pacifist left movement will appeal to an electorate that has/ is swinging towards nationalism.

I think even those on the left don't want to see Militant return (although Hatton is trying to rejoin the party). I think you make a good point about wanting change but being conservative with it. That is why radical political agendas never transform into electoral success in the UK. The electorate are broadly Conservative with a small C, and that's why the centre ground swing vote decides elections.

Any idea that the failings of 30 years can be fixed overnight is hoping for too much and this I think is the faith many hard Corbynistas put in Jeremy. Sadly, they are going to be disappointed. Labour's best hope of forming government is probably in coalition with the SNP, and then everything will become about consensus. For all the things Jeremy might say, consensus is not one of his strong points.

[nxjen]

Well, we'll see. We live in very different, surprising and uncertain times and what may have been true a few years ago cannot be used as evidence or a benchmark for what may occur in the future.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Totally agree with that analysis Blah.

[*Bob*]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Chuka

> Sadiq

> Jarvis

> Lewis

> Cooper

My Corbyn-mad associates on other social media have called for for every single person on this fairly reasonable list of fairly reasonable people to be strung up on gibbets (metaphorically, and in some cases, actually) over the last few weeks and months.

That's what Labour is up against internally at the moment.

[Otta]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Chuka

> > Sadiq

> > Jarvis

> > Lewis

> > Cooper

>

> My Corbyn-mad associates on other social media

> have called for for every single person on this

> fairly reasonable list of fairly reasonable people

> to be strung up on gibbets (metaphorically, and in

> some cases, actually) over the last few weeks and

> months.

>

> That's what Labour is up against internally at the

> moment.

Indeed. Even I have had harsh words to say about Chuka (not recently, but I did think that having dropped out of the race last year he had a bit of a cheek slating Corbyn so much). But for the most part I like him.

But yes, as you say, all of them will be seen as the top "red tories" / Blairites, so they won't be getting much support from the Corbyn hardcore.